tv [untitled] June 30, 2014 2:00am-2:31am PDT
potential location along the lines of equity analysis strategy that you have reviewed in the past to ensure that the projects are located equitably throughout the city to achieve the goals of the programs. and as this is all city general obligation bonds oversight will be provided by the general obligation bond oversight committee. they have the purview and accountability to do audits and reports on bond expenditures and this bond will be part of that existing process. individual appropriations go through the board of supervisors and bond issuances as well. should the bond pass a dedicated website will be created to report on the expenditures and interested partis can see where the projects are and where their status is. with that, i leave with or you with the resolution before you and if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer. >> thank you very much, mr.
brill do members of the board have questions or comments? >> no. >> do we have any members of the public? >> no, no members of the public. >> point of order, just come forward if you want to speak. that is all. >> you think a ballot initiative will put a bond on the measure is going to fix this situation? it's not going to fix the situation. stop paying other city departments work orders. stop coming to the public, stop trying to squeeze money -- stop trying to squeeze water out of a turnip from the employees. what you need to do is sit down, all of you, think about how you are spending your
money? wasteless projects like this one is a waste -- i'm a voter of san francisco. and i'm definitely voting no against this. what needs to happen is mta reform. now a vote for initiative to get the mayor's puppeteers out of this office and put in people from the community, who wants to fight for community issues. safe, reliability transit for the community. that i will support. that is what needs to happen. we need to do an mta reform and show the public how operating funds from muni, the fta recently did an audit in 2007 and caught you guys with the mayor with his hands in the
till, paying stan staffers and lobbyists out of the fund and you want to mislead the public that the mta is in a deficit all the time -- no, it's not. it's just the people behind this desk not doing their job and holding that office accountability four their expenditures. spending $5300 for a megaphone, a bullhorn. >> thank you, next speaker. >> there is no other member of the public who has indicated that they are interested in speaking. >> if you care to speak to the board, please fill out a card. good afternoon. >> my name is janice sachs. i am a driver, i am a transit operator and there are old projects that have not yet been fulfilled. so when i see every
slide that states that the company wants to give a better, reliable and on-time performance, that is really hard for me to grasp, being that we are short 200 something drivers. there will never be on-time better performance, but there will be buss that will try to be safely on-time. there is a big difference. what you don't have enough drivers to drive around the city and pick up everybody at a clocked paced time in which we have scheduled that we should follow or we try to follow. one more thing, he baffled with 280,000 people can look forward to this type of performance and when the buses are not there or for whatever reason the buss are late, the drivers become the problem, they are the
target. but your you are 00 something drivers short and if you add the 200 drivers on and bring in the equipment, that works -- really works and we can drive through the city at a maybe on-time performance. then it would be better to move on to a new project before. you never finished this old project, hiring the people that you need to give this city and the citizens what they need. thank you. >> thank you. sir? >> p.j. williams again. i want to speak on the whole on-time performance thing. it appears to me that we are really getting ahead of ourselves from the basics of just getting on the bus and getting off the bus and having the bus be on-time. you want to start a new program. you have already started programs where people with godly huge strollers, we have
to pull an lrv train up to the platform, lift the stairs, load the stroller, and there is no -- the core value behavior when it comes to how people behave on the bus, nobody wants to look at that whatsoever. now this driver has to worry about making sure those stairs go back down, so that you don't face a lawsuit. so if you are going talk about on-time behavior, look at how the system is operating. because there is a lot of things being said here that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. i mean, i am starting to wonder, do you ride the trains and the buss? have you ever riden the 54 or the 23? do you even know where those neighborhoods are behind bayview? because a lot of this is madness. it's silly. it's silly. i have driven every single division and i'm one of those drivers who can drive just about anything that muni has. and when you talk about on-time
performance, you guys are going to have to go back to the basicks a little bit. most of the people don't know how to board the bus, get on the bus or how to behave once they get on the bus. so i think you can look at some basic things and save a whole lot of money without going around in circles. you know, understand it's will $9100 a year for the average driver come to work. lieutenant governor $35 a day and not even taking into consideration a $2 raise for the driverser just opening a whole other can of worms >> thank you, anyone else wishb to decrease the board on this topic? >> good afternoon, once again, when are you going to tell the
public the truth? they are not telling you about the 251 part-time positions that are still open. on top of your training issue, when do we expect to have a full lineup of operators? oh, in about four, five years. so your tep project is not actually to expand service. actually it's to decrease service because you don't have the bodies. you can't put more service on the streets unless you have the bodies. let's tell the public the truth. somebody said i'm not telling the truth about the number of operators on the platform, well you tell us. you tell us the real number. we know we have inadequate training department; that can't deliver. it takes 45 days to train your average person to come into a bus. you may have a class of 20. you may get ten people out of that to graduate. when do we expect to have a
full lineup of operators? about four or five years. your on-time performance in which as stakeholders we would love to be on-time, but you know what we are telling our members? be safe. and if they are to be safe, they shall follow the rules of the agency. stopping at all stops, making sure all senior citizens and babies and carriages are followed up at the stop before they move. no right turns on red, all of the above. if we did that, if all of our members took that into account and did what they are supposed to do, not that we don't want the system to be on-time, you think -- what is it right now? about 60%? if most our members that are on the platform right now did what they were supposed to do, it would probably be at an unbelievable about 40% on-time. but our members are out here working hard, trying to keep it going. pushing the system, getting into incidents and accidents. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else wishing to address
the board on this topic? seeing none, nobody has represented that this will solve all of the mta's problems forever, but as i have been on the board, it's the best chance to make significant improvements that are to the benefit of all citizen. that is the motion, second? >> second. >> the ayes have it, so ordered. next item, miss boomer. >> item 12, presentation and discussion regarding sfpark evaluation. >> mr. chair as you know, we have now completed the evaluation of the two-year sfpark project and we're pleased to provide some of the results that we found from that project. jay primus will come up and present what we found. >> mr. primus, good afternoon.
>> it's up to you to load it. do you have a paper copy? use that on the overhead. >> let's go out of order and move to the next item. >> item 13, presentation and discussion regarding regional efforts to plan the next generation clipper system. >> who is presenting this? >> so our cio travis fox is going to introduce the item, and then turn over to carol from the mtc to complete the item. >> good afternoon, mr. fox. >> good afternoon.
one moment, i'm just looking for the file. maybe you can load it and you can start speaking. >> somebody should start speaking. [laughter ] do you want to speak? >> i can sing a song. [laughter ] [laughter ] >> good afternoon i promise i will not sing a song to you as roberta would today. [laughter ] . you would not want to hear that, chairman nolan and members of the board, director
reiskin, travis fox, chief information officer for the sfmta and i'm here with carol from mtc. to provide a brief update on the regional update for clipper 2. director reiskin will provide the perspective as well and first i wanted to share a couple of thoughts on where we are today for the agency. so at this point in time clipper has been in full operation on muni for nearly four yearsed. currently clipper tags constitute nearly half of usage across the bay area and within the muni system, nearly half of all muni boards aring are associated with clipper tags. at this juncture, there are 118
clipper retailers across the city in addition, to the muni ticket vending machines that dispense both adult clipper [ka-rdz/] and offer opportunity to add to the clipper cards. sales across the vendor network do vary with some conducting a high level of sales and others have little sales and we're currently papering with mtc to allocate some of the lower performing vendors for better geographic position across the city. that is just a few comments from the muni perspective. the purpose is to have a more global view from carol and i will transition to her at this time. >> great. good afternoon. my name is carol and i work at metropolitan transportation commission and i'm director of the electronic payments unit and we're responsible for delivering the clipper program, as well as fast-track.
clipper cards allow seamless travel between the bay area operators, and clipper is available to 95% of all riders. we have 1.4 active cards in unanimous we're processing about $35 million a month. so this is a great accomplishment and we're excited to be here. we're expecting to launch in napa and solana operators and sonoma marin area rail transit district has announced when they enter into revenue service they will be clipper-only.
so this map just gives you a quick glimpse of those expansion efforts. so a quick look at the clipper program history, as travis mentioned, clipper has been successfully in use on mta since about 2008. and i think the main purpose of putting this slide up without getting into a lot of clipper history is really just to show there was the precursor program translink, that was the original effort to coordinate fare collection in the nine bay area counties and in 2010 the program was rebranded to clipper. that is where you see this big spike in use of the program. it was not just the rebranding effort that resulted in that use, but more importantly the movement of a significant number of payment instruments onto clipper that led to that exceptional growth. so we do
have many customers today, and we do have a very high rate of customer satisfaction, despite the fact that clipper doesn't always work for everyone in every instance. when we survey our customers 98% of them say they would recommend clipper to their friends and families. so we're pleased with that record, even though we know we have more work to do. so while it's taking a long time to get clipper to where it is today and we're continuing to expand out to other operators, we have also starteding to think ahead to the future. this slide just quickly shows that fare collection has undergone significant changes over the last 30 years and we are reevaluating where to take our electronic fare payment systems next. as you know, from your daily life and other presenters here, there are all kinds of new payment options that are emerging in parking, in transit and in other parts of our daily lives and so we're taking a
look at those options to see how they might apply for transit fare payment. we're working with transit operators to take a look at a variety of ways that we could apply mobile payments to ease the burden of having to find a retailer, add value to cards, and make transit payments. and as we take this initial look into where we think we should be headed next we're paying allot of attention to what peer agencies are doing elsewhere in the country. for example, in washington, d.c. area, washington metro has run a program very similar to ours and, in fact, the same vendore. they have just gone out to bid and in this [ka-eurbgs/] they have gone with a different contractor and they are pursue something innovative models that we think we could learn from and that is the case in chicago and sortly will be the case in portland. unlike the first time at the
cutting-edge ever translink, we have the benefit of looking at lessons learned in the industry and hopefully not being at the leading edge. so where does that leave us in our region today? basically we have a contract with our vendor right now today that is slated to end in 2019. and so when we work back from that, we are planning for situation where we would have enough time to bring a new contract into being, and to have parallel operations for some period of time. so that we can manage the inevitable challenges related to upgrading such a massive system with so much deployed equip out in -- equipment out in the field. some of the limitations is the system architecture was really designed flate -- in the
late 90s and so we want to lay er in new technologies. an executive committee that mr. reiskinstit cits on and steering committee and long-range committee to look at uroptions moving forward. i think i will just stop there and take questions or turn this back over to mr. reiskin for the status. >> director reiskin do you want to add anything? >> i will just add as carol said, i have been participating and meeting with my peers from the larger transit systems in the bay area and smaller ones in discussion about the present and future of clipper, probably for the last year and a half or so.
and i think the presentations kind of laid out there is a lot of great things that clipper provides today, and it's an amenity that i think many of our riders really value and appreciate, especially when it's working for them. there are some limitations as one of the last slides showed in terms of the technology, in terms of contract that we have. so we're very eager to be working across the region and with the mtc on what that next generation is, and looks like, and it is good. i think as carol said, that we are not on the leading edge now; that there is a lot of experience developing across the country and we're learning from the good and not so good as well and hoping to come out of it with a much better, more modern and flexible customer experience with lower costs, with better consistency across the region. and we're also looking at governance about how the
program is managed in region? right now it's a contract between single entity that pretty much manages the entire clipper system and mtc and operators such as muney are only engaged through an interagency mou, which puts a little distance between us and the interfaces with our customers. so there is a lot of discussions across the region, not only looking atle the system, but mappinging it going forward as a region? in terms of layering of technologis that carol mentioned we're looking at working with mtc at pilot something different things such as mobile ticketing, which certainly would be the part of any next generation system to get experience with it sooner. we're also looking at opportunitis with third-party equipment, so we're not looked into the current sole source proprietary program, another thing that will help inform
[ inaudible ] [ inaudible ] the next phase. it's a pretty big deal to transit to a fare system and we're working what others are doing and working to the 2019 date to throw the [spw-euplt/] switch and have another system in place. >> anybody to address the board? [ inaudible ] >> mr. mr. chairman. >> what mtc has been doing which has been great is going around to all of the major transit agencies to give all the boards and public an update. [ inaudible ]
that is better. but before anything else, i want to take a moment to acknowledge that something like sfpark doesn't happen without the energy, the heart and passion of many people, only some of whom you sigh here and i'm truly representing work of an incredible team that delivered the sfpark pilot. i also want to take a moment to remind anyone in the audience would doesn't know what the pilot actually means to quickly summarize what they include. sfpark in a nutshell was a federally-funded demonstration of a new approach to managing parking that used better information, and responsive pricing to make it easier to park. that was the bottom line and single focus. that included finally making it easier to pay, either with meters that take credit cards and debit cards or pay by phone and meters throughout the city. that was complimented by longer time limits moving from one or
two hours to either four limits or no time limit at all. to make it easy to quickly find a space we used demand hm responsive pricing to make one's experience as a d-ray there was almost a space available on the block, most of the time. that was the target. we followed the same approach to pricing at the mta garages with one addition, that was an off-peak discount that meant if you entered or exited a garage after a peak time you could get a discount up to $2 for a total discount of $4. so offering our customers a powerful option, and rather than asking people to pay a peak-period surge charge, we offered an
off-peak discount. another core element of the pilot was parking sensors and pretty incredible new technology. and major installation of a hockey-puck shaped device sensing and communicating continuously 24/7 for years whether or not a space was occupied. an incredibly rich dataset and one before that was never available and the cool thing about that is that the data came to us in realtime. we turned around and provided that into a realtime data feeds and free apps that we made available to our customers and what other to developers of apps to get that data out there, so others could help us distribute it and maxize social benefit that. is exactly what happened. many apps were developed using this. so that high-tech element of f parc was complimented by the low-tech and there is no way to measure this, but possibly one of the
most cost effective things that we did in the project, hundreds of way finding signs that you see, which you see on the left. directing people, even san franciscos who lived here a long time, to get them matched up with a parking space and off the roads as quickly as possible. underlying all of this was an investment in a powerful data management system, which didn't just enable a thorough evaluation of the sfpark pilot, but was woven into our day-to-day operations with rate changes, contract management, ad hoc analyses, a true instance of smart cities using information to make smarter and smarter decisions and consistent request sfmta's movement in this direction. so that is what the pilot included and what you see here are the seven pilot areas covering
about 25% of the city's metered spaces and 13 of our 19 garages. what you don't see on the map are two control areas the inner richmond and union street, where we did the same level of data collection, but none of the policy or technology changes. part of the sfmta rispontto gather an unprecedented amount of data to enable a truly rigorous evaluation of the project, both by our team, as well as an independent federal evaluation team, whose report will be released this fall. this slide gives a highlight of the schedule, and it's a little hard to read. but the highlights are the funding was -- it was announced that we received the funding in fall of 2007. we didn't actually have the funding in hand to spend until the summer of 2009; which meant we were running as fast as we
can to launch the project in 2011 and did our rate change in the summer of 2011 and we continued rate changes through today, but with the formal two-year data collection period through 201. this summary presentation is a distillation of the present. the full report is 150 pages or so, available online. it is lessons learned, as well as a separate technical it guide to help save other cities time and money as they pursue smarter parking management. all of this was designed to help other cities learn from our experience and improve on it. so after that, to jump into the evaluation itself